Submission + - Fake DMCA takedowns blocking journalists' stories (bbc.co.uk) 2
Bruce66423 writes: 'Journalists have been forced to temporarily take down articles critical of powerful oil lobbyists due to the exploitation of US copyright law, according to a new report.
'At least five such articles have been subject to fake copyright claims, including one by the respected South African newspaper Mail & Guardian, according to the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP).
'The claims — which falsely assert ownership of the stories — have been made by mystery individuals under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), a law meant to protect copyright holders.'
Time for some intermediary to be required to have skin in the game so that when a takedown is shown to be false, the intermediary gets smacked? Or all DMCA notices to be issued by real people on behalf of organisations whose beneficial ownership is known?
'At least five such articles have been subject to fake copyright claims, including one by the respected South African newspaper Mail & Guardian, according to the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP).
'The claims — which falsely assert ownership of the stories — have been made by mystery individuals under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), a law meant to protect copyright holders.'
Time for some intermediary to be required to have skin in the game so that when a takedown is shown to be false, the intermediary gets smacked? Or all DMCA notices to be issued by real people on behalf of organisations whose beneficial ownership is known?
Proof of copyright? (Score:2)
There should be a proof of copyright needed in order to call for a DMCA takedown, not just a "because I say so" call.
If anyone can make a DMCA takedown request then it's basically open for anyone to create a mess for just about anyone else.
Can't they be counter-sued? (Score:2)
I think the problem here is they can't identify the person making the false claims.